Comments

On some level, the article seems to hit on many of the important points. But what does it mean for society to be resilient to the impact of robots? Specific concepts should be used to counteract the effect of unemployment upon the economy. Specifically, an economic role should be found for the unemployed. The most obvious, but perhaps not the only method like this that has been used, is what has been called 'crowd-think': using students and would-be-entrepreneurs to stimulate aspects of industry, and also, to work reciprocally to serve their own interests, such as entertainment and enhancement functions (EEF). There is a role for functions which could be called quasi-employment appreciation (QEA), which serve an economic role while also serving a quality-of-life functionality. The role of robots is (supposedly) to enhance the lives of all humans. And if that dream does not come true, the results may be dire. Read more

Lets be honest. The real problem is not technology taking away jobs. It is not lack of training. It is an ever increasing population that is driving most of the worlds problems. If we can learn to control our own numbers perhaps there will be enough work for all. Read more

This article is just another case of knee jerk reaction, which has characterised economic history ever since technology had become a key driver of growth. It is based on a total misinterpretation of the role of technology in economic development.

Technology does not destroy jobs. On the contrary it helps release the workforce locked up in outdated and unproductive modes of production for deployment in more productive avenues. When a new technology is introduced, it enhances productivity resulting in higher profits, which ought to be invested in new ventures to absorb the workforce rendered redundant by the introduction of new technologies. This is exactly where the problem is.

Profits arising out of technological progress is invariably usurped by investors and siphoned off in to speculative activities, which do not create real wealth or values. Profits are also diverted in to personal aggrandisement activities which provide very limited developmental spin offs for the real economy.

In reality, technology advancements and innovations continue to be used the wrong way. Venture capitalists and other investors who invest in technology companies often force such companies to adopt premium pricing strategies, which while mopping up unrealistic profits for these companies reduce the purchasing power available for other goods.

If at all Keynes was right about anything, it was his prognosis about technological progress. He was of the view that technological progress will progressively reduce the need for people to work and more. What most economists and politicians have never bothered to understand is the real intent of this forecast. Induction of new technologies must lead to reduction in working hours and not reduction in employment. Once this is ensured there will be no technological unemployment.

The basic faults are actually in the economic system and not in technological progress. Blaming technological progress for unemployment is a clear case of barking the wrong tree. The root cause of the problem of technological unemployment is the unequal sharing of the value additions accruing from technological progress between investors and the workforce. And the speculative markets abet and facilitate processes which aggravate the problem by siphoning off resources from the real economy. While everyone seems to lament over the growing inequalities, no one seems interested in addressing its root causes. Read more

M A J Jeyaseelan, although I agree with much of your (and Keynes') position, you run a slight risk of sounding like a socialist. I'm not from an establishment by any means, but (just playing devil's advocate), there is a contrary position which says that it is labor questions which are difficult, precisely because our economy is arranged in the way that you suppose. Remember, the economy is not always decided by individuals, but instead, mass trends of consumerism, corporate ownership, trends in industry, etc.

Of course people with money want to hold onto it---no one else is earning any! Read more

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.